D&D 5E 2 PC Wizards Copying Each others spell books

Nevvur

Explorer
I just wanted to note that ritual spells when casting them as a ritual don't need to be prepared by a wizard.

For sure, but it doesn't really swing my overall assessment. From my point of view, the imaginary, generic % power of 2-PC wizard synergy is too difficult to gauge in the enormous fuzzy space of all possible class synergies. I am mildly familiar with descriptions of your gaming tables from previous threads. If I recall correctly, optimization features very prominently in your groups, and I think you're trying to suss out how powerful a combo this is. I don't think we'll ever get satisfactory data on that, but if you have a white room in mind, feel free to build it.

Not every tables cares about optimization that much, and I think that at least partially explains the infrequency of this combo in actual play. People be playin' what they wanna play. For people like myself, it's more a matter of not wanting to intrude on the game space another player chose to occupy, even if there are some great benefits to doing so. I would be more open to it if it arose during a collaborative, session-0 character creation phase.

Back to mechanics and power balance, I just feel like the overall benefits of having 2 wizards doesn't stand head and shoulders above other possibilities. neogod22 points out some of the great benefits of redundancy, and I do feel like a pair of wizards has better synergy than most other pairs of single classes. I'd be more nervous as a DM of a party with 2 wizards than a party with 2 rogues, that's for sure.

An aside, does this question arise from the thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?610300-What-is-the-best-quot-5th-quot-class/page3?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Sorry bud, but, not seeing the toxicity. You asked a question and people answered.

For me personally, sharing spell books is something I've done and seen done across multiple groups spanning multiple editions. It was never an issue. AFAIC, this is pretty much just automatically presumed when you have two wizards in the same party. I've honestly never seen anyone consider this to be a bad thing before.

Frankly, I'm not seeing where the problem is. Sharing spell books is kinds the point of having two wizards in the same party.

Repeatedly accusing others of having a problem with something that they don't and that the never stated nor implied they had a problem with is toxic.

I have no problem with 2 wizards sharing spell books. I've never had a problem with it. So why does this imiganiry problem with wizards sharing spell books keep getting brought up? Why did you bring it up again in this post? Is it projection? Is it subconsciously looking for a fight? Why was this done? Why are so many doing it?
 

Hussar

Legend
Repeatedly accusing others of having a problem with something that they don't and that the never stated nor implied they had a problem with is toxic.

I have no problem with 2 wizards sharing spell books. I've never had a problem with it. So why does this imiganiry problem with wizards sharing spell books keep getting brought up? Why did you bring it up again in this post? Is it projection? Is it subconsciously looking for a fight? Why was this done? Why are so many doing it?

Why do you presume I'm talking about you? [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] in the opening statements of the thread talks about this being problematic. So, it's not like it's an imaginary problem. Dude, I am totally lost as to where the hostility is coming from. All I said was that I had never seen this as even remotely a problem. It was and is so commonly done in every group I've ever played with that I was a bit surprised that it wasn't pretty much universally done.

But, in any case, I've apparently said or done something upsetting, so, for that I'm sorry? I guess? Anyway, have a good thread.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
For sure, but it doesn't really swing my overall assessment. From my point of view, the imaginary, generic % power of 2-PC wizard synergy is too difficult to gauge in the enormous fuzzy space of all possible class synergies. I am mildly familiar with descriptions of your gaming tables from previous threads. If I recall correctly, optimization features very prominently in your groups, and I think you're trying to suss out how powerful a combo this is. I don't think we'll ever get satisfactory data on that, but if you have a white room in mind, feel free to build it.

Not every tables cares about optimization that much, and I think that at least partially explains the infrequency of this combo in actual play. People be playin' what they wanna play. For people like myself, it's more a matter of not wanting to intrude on the game space another player chose to occupy, even if there are some great benefits to doing so. I would be more open to it if it arose during a collaborative, session-0 character creation phase.

Back to mechanics and power balance, I just feel like the overall benefits of having 2 wizards doesn't stand head and shoulders above other possibilities. neogod22 points out some of the great benefits of redundancy, and I do feel like a pair of wizards has better synergy than most other pairs of single classes. I'd be more nervous as a DM of a party with 2 wizards than a party with 2 rogues, that's for sure.

An aside, does this question arise from the thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?610300-What-is-the-best-quot-5th-quot-class/page3?

Yes this thread likely wouldn't have came up without that one. The pc wizards sharing spell books aspect was something I'd never thought about till thinking on my answer to the question in that thread. I'm a little surprised that idea had occurred to most everyone here before this thread seeing how uncommon it's stated to occur in practice but I'm not that surprised about it.

I do think it's a strong benefit. It's probably not worth giving up a healer or a "tank/striker" or a skill monkey for. But after the most important party roles are met then maybe it starts being a consideration.
 

5ekyu

Hero
Repeatedly accusing others of having a problem with something that they don't and that the never stated nor implied they had a problem with is toxic.

I have no problem with 2 wizards sharing spell books. I've never had a problem with it. So why does this imiganiry problem with wizards sharing spell books keep getting brought up? Why did you bring it up again in this post? Is it projection? Is it subconsciously looking for a fight? Why was this done? Why are so many doing it?
Never stated or implied?

Actually the connotation of "is thins a thing?" tends to carry varying flavor of incredulity or challenge to valudity or basically speaking it being a problem.

The opening post set the table... Dont act so offput when folks grab the appetizers.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Never stated or implied?

Actually the connotation of "is thins a thing?" tends to carry varying flavor of incredulity or challenge to valudity or basically speaking it being a problem.

The opening post set the table... Dont act so offput when folks grab the appetizers.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Asking if something is a thing is a question about if it's actually possible. That could be because you are being cautious that you didn't overlook something, it could be out of surprise such as "wow is that a thing" or it could be as you immediately presumed, "wow I can't believe something so bad is actually a thing". Trying to read that any specific way, and especially the worst way is projecting and toxic.
 
Last edited:

acorn_stasis

First Post
I currently play in two 6 player games of 5e. My recent experience is that two wizards is meh at best. I'd swap one for a fighter/barbarian/cleric any day in terms of getting the business done. There is not enough utility in two wizards when compared to one wizard and one something else. Now I know: people should play what they want and I agree 100%. But down in the nitty gritty of at table play, with heavy encounters, two wizards does not, in my experience, play as well as one plus something else (especially is its an extra fighter/barbarian/cleric as noted above).

The above is why I think there are not more two wizard parties. Namely, because one is better than two.
 

5ekyu

Hero
Asking if something is a thing is a question about if it's actually possible. That could be because you are being cautious that you didn't overlook something, it could be out of surprise such as "wow is that a thing" or it could be as you immediately presumed, "wow I can't believe something so bad is actually a thing". Trying to read that any specific way, and especially the worst way is projecting and toxic.
So... You acknowledge it can be read a certain way but then go to blaming the reactions onto others? Ok thats great. Wonderful. Well done. I will definitely keep your wisdom in mind going further.

I hope many give you their live today.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
So... You acknowledge it can be read a certain way but then go to blaming the reactions onto others? Ok thats great. Wonderful. Well done. I will definitely keep your wisdom in mind going further.

I hope many give you their live today.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

It can be read a number of different ways. That many here, including you, chose the most offensive and worst way to take it is what made me call the responses toxic.

To further it all, instead of saying sorry You double down and argue that because it could be taken in one bad way that you were justified in taking it as such even when alternate non-offensive possibilities exist.

It would be one thing if you assume something for sake of forwarding discussion and then moving away from that assumption when it is proven wrong, but instead you double down on it that much more. That's also toxic.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Why do you presume I'm talking about you? @Elfcrusher in the opening statements of the thread talks about this being problematic. So, it's not like it's an imaginary problem. Dude, I am totally lost as to where the hostility is coming from. All I said was that I had never seen this as even remotely a problem. It was and is so commonly done in every group I've ever played with that I was a bit surprised that it wasn't pretty much universally done.

But, in any case, I've apparently said or done something upsetting, so, for that I'm sorry? I guess? Anyway, have a good thread.

Thank you.

As to your question, if you weren't speaking to me I am sorry. I assumed you were and your reply to my previous post was directed at me and said those same things I am objecting to. So to me all the evidence I had up until now was that you were speaking to me.

Honestly I don't really see how @Elfcrusher ever said it wasn't okay. He said he dislikes spell shops and sharing spells for the same reason he dislikes magic item shops. Clearly a personal preference and not an objective statement on his part IMO. If you took him differently and that's where those comments came from then that's fine. I don't want to get into an argument about what some third party's post meant or didn't mean.

If one person said I dont think it is a problem then no issue. It was that Most everyone did that. Why is that a problem? Because it was everyone assuming the worst case scenario in what I was saying. (Or perhaps what elfcrusher was saying).

Surely you can see how someone would feel it's toxic when everyone gangs up on them by assuming the worst about something they said. Especially when those assumptions weren't anywhere near true.
 

Remove ads

Top